CEDAW/C/74/D/126/2018 on which they settled; and (d) the public apology constitutes an acknowledgment of wrongdoing, as the authors themselves accept. 4.15 Thus, the authors have obtained effective redress for the harm that they suffered as a result of their relationships with the undercover police officers. This is made explicit in both of the schedules to the settlement agreements. Both schedules contain explanations that the settlement agreement was in “full and final settlement” of the authors’ claims. If, contrary to the State party’s position, the authors’ national claims did include either factual or legal assertions regarding sex- or gender-based discrimination, any such claims were clearly within the scope of the settlement agreement and were fully and finally settled. Alternatively, if the authors’ national claims did not include either factual or legal assertions regarding sex- or gender-based discrimination, the settlement agreements were clearly intended to be in full and final settlement of all the harm suffered by the authors as a result of their relationships with the officers. That is why provision was made not only for financial compensation for the harm suffered but also for a public apology and for payment of legal costs. It is utterly fanciful to contend, as the authors appear to, that, despite such “full and final settlement”, it was the intention of the parties that the authors remained free to bring a claim relating to the matter before the Committee. 4.16 In addition, the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis with respect to D.L., T.B., R.B., H.S. and B.H. The State party acceded to the Optional Protocol on 17 December 2004, and the circumstances of the five authors ’ claims arose before that date. The alleged sexual relationships in their cases lasted from 1 997 to 1999 (T.B.), 1995 to 2000 (R.B.), 1990 to 1992 (H.S.) and 1987 to 1988 (B.H.). For the author D.L., “her sexual relationship continued into 2005, but she discovered the identity of her partner in 2001, and so the alleged wrongful act took place whil st the relationship lasted from 1999–2001 (i.e. during the time she did not know his true identity)”. 4.17 The authors’ reliance on the Committee’s jurisprudence in A.T. v. Hungary is misplaced because, in that case, the Committee’s conclusion turned on a fact-sensitive assessment of ongoing domestic abuse that had continued after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Hungary. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 In comments dated 21 February 2019, the authors assert that they have exhausted domestic remedies. In its views in communication No. 47/2012, the Committee considered that an author must have made “reasonable efforts” to exhaust all domestic remedies available. 4 The authors have made such reasonable efforts, given the complex and extensive litigation that they have brought in this matter. 5.2 The settlement of the authors’ civil claims did not constitute a voluntary settlement of damages. The authors accepted the settlement in order to remain insured to protect them from being liable for the defendant’s legal costs in the event that they lost. It was a condition of the continued insurance policy that a settlement offer be accepted if counsel advised that it was reasonable. Once the defendant had made a financial offer that the claimants were unlikely to better at trial, the claimants were aware that, if they rejected that offer, they would no longer be insured under their policy. If they lost the policy, they could have faced costs of hundreds of thousands of pounds. The settlement offers were made without any disclosure being provided to the authors. Such disclosure was a crucial remedy for them. The authors assert that “the operation of this system creates intersectional discrimination on the basis of gender and socioeconomic status”. Owing to a lack of financial resources, the authors __________________ 4 19-22187 González Carreño v. Spain (CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012), para. 8.6. 11/15